Then it is incumbent on you to answer your own question. — Banno

See my answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

As for your position that thought isn't created in the brain, how do you explain the fact that injuries to the brain result in profound effects on thought? — Count Timothy von Icarus

See my answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

It's widely believed that consciousness itself, that Holy Grail of science and philosophy, will soon be given a neural explanation.

You are the second to mention "consciousness". The third one would be myself when I will explain my position — Alkis Piskas

Well, I did that, but I finally have not included "consciousness" in my position, for not complicating things. Yet, I have included two quotations referring to Descartes, which mention consciousness. See https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

(con't) ... AIs engineer grey goo-like nanoviruses released into all of the major urban sprawls on the planet which target only influential people – "movers and shakers" at all strata (as per their online presences / reputations / networks with other influential people) – making them symbiotic hosts the AIs can use as avatars to gradually repurpose global civilization in order to execute AIs' more-than-human (yet unknown / unintelligible to humanity until it's too late to stop it :eyes:) Plan.

To identify yourself as a Brainist or Non-brainist you should have already run through the question of what is thought and answered the question — Mark Nyquist

I think it was very clear from my description of the topic that I am a non-brainist. Not only my description was based on that element, but I also declared it explicitly towards the end: "So, my position is that thought is neither created by nor is taking place in the brain."
Anyway, you can find my whole answer at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/586700

(con't) ... AIs engineer grey goo-like nanoviruses released into all of the major urban sprawls on the planet which target only influential people – "movers and shakers" at all strata (as per their online presences / reputations / networks with other influential people) – making them symbiotic hosts the AIs can use as avatars to gradually repurpose global civilization in order to execute AIs' more-than-human (yet unknown / unintelligible to humanity until it's too late to stop it :eyes:) Plan. — 180 Proof

Scary and also exciting! I feel dinosaurish!

Basically you take brain state and do an expansion... — Mark Nyquist

I don't know or can understand what does this mean. Should I study monism or something?

Brain state = BRAIN(mental content) = BRAIN(specific mental content)
So I assume brain state includes thinking. — Mark Nyquist

So, you assume that based on a previous assumption (which you take as granted). Well, what can I say? Maybe I could say something if I had studied monism.

I also use the terms "dualism" and "monism" but as general concepts/terms that one can check in any philosophical dictionary. But just that. Then I always offer a personal description/view, usually with practical examples (applications in life) that everyone can undestand, which is the main thing and which do not require the study of these subjects.

If the brain can't think then what does? I'm inclined to answer this with a not so appropiate joke. So I won't answer like this (a bit of fun can get too much if it's more than a bit).

I don't understand why you say that the brain can't think. Why do you write this?. My answer is a long one. It's all about a three-unity. Physical world. You=body, inner magical world. Once they were one.

The first answer that came up in my head btw, was "my d××k..."

The mind thinks. It's takes the reference points created during our evolution and triangulates ideas. I think philosophy is this process being carried out on the stage with many different reference points. A three point structure that can build on it's own dialog or self coherence can create intelligence. At least enough to dominate the game of GO. — Cheshire

This is not adressed to me but I take it as a response to the topic. So, thank you.

Re "The mind thinks": OK, but is the mind the brain or something else?

Re "triangular ideas", etc.: Can you give a practical example?

Re "triangular ideas", etc.: Can you give a practical example? — Alkis Piskas

Is this addressed to me?

Alkis, your three essential questions are as follow: "what is thinking?", "how is thought created?", and "where does thought take place?" In response to the first and third of these, it can only be said that the person, rather than the brain, is thinking, because our thoughts are highly dependent upon the state of our bodies and are continuously effected by neurally transmitted information from our bodies. In other words, the brain does not produce thought in "a vacuum". As for where thought occurs: some memory seems to be stored in cells/tissues outside of the brain, in other parts of the body. That having been said, most thought, including all rational thought, interpretative thought and emotive thought, occurs as a result of brain activity. This is not the same as saying that thought occurs "within the brain", though. I think that reasoning, for instance, involves the application of analytic relationships, themselves from memory, to information "taken in" (so to speak) by means of the sensory organs. It is, therefore, not wrong to say that thought "occurs in the brain", but that statement seems to deny the full picture of the human experience of thought.

We must at this point, consider the question of what "thought" is, and what it's essential nature is, and more to the point, what individual "thoughts" are and the "minds" composed thereof. I would argue that, despite the essentiality of thought to the human experience, and the profundity of the experience of thought from the perspective of an individual human being, that thought in general and individual thoughts in particular have no independent, objective reality. Thought is a highly subjective human experience, and one person's thought cannot be said to have any reality outside of the body (using that term as inclusive of the brain) of that individual person. To say, then, that a person's thoughts can be "located somewhere", even though they are the result of the biochemical and bioelecrical activity of the central nervous system, I think is a false consideration. "Thought", rather, appears to be the subjective human experience of those biochemical and bioelectrical activities. Said biochemical and bioelectrical activities are the answer to the second of your questions: "how is thought created?" In answer to the third of your questions, "where does thought take place?", the activities themselves occur within the body, and more particularly within the CNS, and even more particularly within the brain, with all three of those statements cbeing equally correct, but the "thoughts" experienced by the human being comprising that body, CNS, and brain, and indeed the "mind" which is the sum total of the individual's thoughts, cannot be said to be located within the same localities. Rather, they are general subjective experiences of the individual, the individual's subjective experience of his "world" and of the interaction of his body, CNS, and brain with the external environment, and as such cannot be said to be located, or to have independent existence, anywhere. While the physiological activities which result in the subjective human experience of thought can be more-or-less located (even though they are not as yet fully understood), the resultant experience of "thought" and "mind" themselves absolutely cannot, because they have no location, as a result of their having no independent reality. This is similar to the human experience of color, which has no objective reality. Color is a dependent, subjective human experience based upon the objective, independent reality of differing wavelengths of light. While the differing wavelengths of light have existence in objective reality, the differing colors do not, but are rather only subjective human experiences. It is the same with certain physiological (biochemical and bioelectrical) processes of the body, CNS, and brain, as opposed to "thought" and "mind". "Thoughts", like "colors", are not real things, though to we humans they seem to be, and though they have a profound impact upon our lives. As such, they, along with the various "minds" comprising them, cannot be located anywhere in the universe. Am I effectively communicating my concept of this? I hope so...

If the brain isn't a person, then who is?

Surely the Reptilians would resist that though. They already have a monopoly on powerful people.


inanimate matter -> animate matter -> animate, thinking matter (us) -> the attaining of the Absolute

That's why the ETs are observing us, to see if we can do it. Hence all the wild UFO sensor readings on US military aircraft.

but the brain is not a person. A person is so much more, having an associated "world", which is the sum total of his subjective experiences and sensory input from his human body. As I may have obliquely indicated above, the thoughts produced by a hypothetical "brain kept alive in a jar" would be totally different, and so the "world" thus created would be totally different, from those of the same brain if it were part of a human body...

it can only be said that the person, rather than the brain, is thinking, because our thoughts are highly dependent upon the state of our bodies and are continuously effected by neurally transmitted information from our bodies — Michael Zwingli

That being the case its the brain that thinks and our bodies (the true us) seeing it.

I think your statement true, so long as the brain is remembered to be an integral part of "our bodies, the true us". Indeed, the brain is key to who and what we are, but it is not summatory.

think your statement true, so long as the brain is remembered to be an integral part of "our bodies, the true us". — Michael Zwingli

Cant we see the inner world as being on equal level with the outer physical world?

I mean, I have read the book "We are our Brains", by a Dutch writer, but cant you just as well say that we are our body?

yes, and the subjective "world" produced by the brain is dependent and a function largely of the body.

Prishon, I am new to this site and the software thereof. How does one quote a post in replying?

yes, and the subjective "world" produced by the brain is dependent and a function largely of the body. — Michael Zwingli

:grin:

Yes. All three, the body, the brain, and the outer world are interdependent. If you consider the body to be you then the question of who thinks becomes obsolete.

That's why the ETs are observing us, to see if we can do it. Hence all the wild UFO sensor readings on US military aircraft. — Count Timothy von Icarus

:grin:

but the brain is not a person — Michael Zwingli

Then, who is?

Don't mind me. I was just poking a bit of fun at the discussion title.

inanimate matter -> animate matter -> animate, thinking matter (us) -> the attaining of the Absolute

That's why the ETs are observing us, to see if we can do it. Hence all the wild UFO sensor readings on US military aircraft — Count Timothy von Icarus

You're one of those guys!

Will someone please tell me how to quote a post in replying here?

Will someone please tell me how to quote a post in replying here? — Michael Zwingli

Select what you wanna quote. Then press "quote".

Scary and also exciting! I feel dinosaurish! — TheMadFool

:sweat:

ah, I see. That seems to mean I cannot do it on my phone.

Im on phone too. My laptop needs lapup. ☺

ah, I see. That seems to mean I cannot do it on my phone. — Michael Zwingli

Like this. When you keep your finger on the text you can select.

A latter day Archimedes, I shout, "eureka!"